Production, reproduction and citizenship : key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20th century

(1)

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

isbn 978-952-61-0986-2 issn 1798-5749

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

Social responsibilities, political participation and socio-political inclusion are themes of major importance in debates of social policy. How are society and socio- political life organized? What are the historical roots of the way of organizing societies and social security that are still important for how we organize social life today? What is actually the major concern of social policy? What is social policy concerned? The present research is investigating relevant discourses in order to find a systematic answer. Social policy is a strategic way of organizing social and socio-political life. Social policy is both, a discipline and social practice. Thus, in this reflexive role, it is concerned with both, social organization and the ways of knowing about social and socio-political life and society.

d is se rt at io n s

| No 49 | Merja Tarvainen | Production, Reproduction and Citizenship: Key Discourses of Social Policy in the Turn of ...

Merja Tarvainen Production, Reproduction and

Citizenship

Key Discourses of Social Policy in the Turn

of the 20th Century

Merja Tarvainen

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

Key Discourses of Social Policy in the Turn

of the 20th Century

(2)

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

– Key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20 century

^th

(3)

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies no 49

(4)

MERJA TARVAINEN

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

– Key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20 century

^th

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

No 49

Itä-Suomen yliopisto

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kuopio

2012

(5)

Kopijyvä Kuopio 2012

Vastaava toimittaja:Prof. Kimmo Katajala Toimittaja Eija Fabritius

Myynti: Itä-Suomen yliopiston kirjasto

ISBN (print): 978-952-61-0986-2 ISBN (pdf): 978-952-61-0987-9

ISSN-L: 1798-5749 ISSN (print): 1798-5749

ISSN (pdf): 1798-5757

(6)

Tarvainen Merja

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

– Key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20 century, 211 p. ^th University of Eastern Finland, 2012

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, 2012 Publications of University of Eastern Finland,

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 49

Dissertation ABSTRACT

Social policy has a strategic role for organizing societal living and practices. The emergence of modern social policy is connected with social and societal changes in the turn of the 20^th century. Thus, research focused on social policy of that period will give information not only about the history of social policy but also about issues that play a role in current social policy and debates on socio-political life.

The research was in quest of discourses of social policy. The work explored discourses concerned themes about topics around various problems and aimed on conceptualizing these issues. The research was orientated on theory development, focusing especially on literature, in which had been based on approaching core text of these social policy debates in a source-critical way and allowed a systematic discourse analysis. The exploration focused on the turn of the 20^th century, looking especially on social and societal changes in Finland. However, it analyzed these changes in relevant context, mostly general European developments.

The main themes of modern social policy are industrialization, social security, the emergence of civil society and modern ideas of the state. Problematizing the main themes opens views on key questions of social policy and its emergence with new meanings in the context of modernity. The key questions of social policy within modernity are work and the shifts away from previously typical ways of working, social responsibilities and social security as well as social, political and socio-political participation, membership and agency. Three major discourses of modern social policy – i.e. the ways of knowing and organizing social life – are production, reproduction and citizenship (as the category of socio-political membership). They are forming the strategic frames of the ideas and practices of modern social policy. They are key points of the conceptual understanding and practical organization social and societal life.

The research discussed especially the role of reproduction: reproduction has been analyzed as the conceptual and practical source of understanding social policy beside production. This is theoretically linked to the aim of opening the question of two viewpoints concerned the emergence of social policy. Novel research themes will be opened, for example, with problematizing the major discourses and their relation matters.

Key words: social policy, production, reproduction, citizenship ISBN (print): 978-952-61-0986-2

ISBN (pdf): 978-952-61-0987-9 ISSN-L: 1798-5749

ISSN (print): 1798-5749 ISSN (pdf): 1798-5757

(7)

Tarvainen Merja

Tuotanto, uusintaminen ja kansalaisuus

– Sosiaalipolitiikan keskeiset diskurssit 1800–1900-luvun taitteessa, 211 s.

Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2012

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta, 2012 Publications of University of Eastern Finland,

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 49

Väitöskirja

TIIVISTELMÄ

Sosiaalipolitiikalla on keskeinen merkitys yhteiskunnan ja sen käytänteiden organisoi- misessa. Nykymerkityksisen sosiaalipolitiikan muotoutuminen käynnistyi osana yhteis- kunnallisia muutoksia 1800–1900-luvun taitteessa. Näkökulmallisesti 1800–1900-luvun taitteeseen keskitetty tutkimus sosiaalipolitiikasta kertoo paitsi sosiaalipolitiikan histori- allisista juurista, niin myös siitä keskeisestä tematiikasta josta sosiaalipolitiikassa nyky- päivänäkin on kysymys.

Tutkimuksessa etsittiin modernin sosiaalipolitiikan diskursseja. Niitä etsittiin ja tarkasteltiin problematisoimalla löydettyjä sosiaalipolitiikan avainteemoja ja - kysymyksiä. Tutkimusotteeltaan teoreettinen tarkastelu rajautui ajallisesti 1800–1900- luvun taitteeseen eli nykymerkityksisen sosiaalipolitiikan muotoutumisen juurille; tarkastelu on sidottu erityisesti Suomen yhteiskunnalliseen kehitykseen olennaisissa eu- rooppalaisissa yhteyksissään. Metodologisesti tutkimus on kirjallisuustutkimus, jossa käytettiin erityisesti kirjallisuuskatsauksen ja käsiteanalyyttisen otteen metodeja sekä diskursiivisesti analysoivaa lukemista.

Modernin sosiaalipolitiikan keskeiset teemat ovat teollistuminen, sosiaalinen tur- vallisuus sekä valtioajattelu ja kansalaisyhteiskunnan synty. Avainteemojen problemati- sointi avaa näkökulman nykymerkityksisen sosiaalipolitiikan ja sen muotoutumisen keskeisiin kysymyksiin. Näitä keskeisiä kysymyksiä ovat työ ja työn muutos, sosiaali- turva ja sosiaaliset vastuut sekä sosiaalinen ja poliittinen osallisuus ja toiminta. Sosiaali- politiikan kolme keskeistä diskurssia, eli tapoja tietää ja jäsentää sosiaalista todellisuutta, ovat tuotanto (produktio), uusintaminen (reproduktio) ja kansalaisuus (sosio-poliittisena jäsenyyskategoriana). Nämä muodostavat modernin sosiaalipolitiikan ideoiden ja käy- täntöjen keskeisen käsitekehikon. Ne ovat keskeinen osa modernin sosiaalisen ja yhteis- kunnallisen elämänmenon käsitteellistä jäsentämistä ja käytännöllistä järjestämistä.

Tutkimus jäsentää nykymerkityksisen sosiaalipolitiikan teemoja, kysymyksiä ja diskursseja, jotka ovat keskeisiä nyky-yhteiskunnan ja sen käytänteiden ymmärtämisek- si. Se käy keskustelua tuotannon, uusintamisen ja kansalaisuuden käsitteellisistä kysy- myksistä ja yhteiskunnallisista käytännöistä sekä näiden problematiikasta. Lisäksi tutkimuksessa valotetaan uusintamisen merkitystä sosiaalipolitiikan käsitteellisen ja käy- tännöllisen ymmärryksen rakentajana sekä sosiaalipoliittisten muutosten tekijänä. Sosi- aalipolitiikan keskeisistä diskursseista – tuotannosta, uusintamisesta ja kansalaisuudesta sosio-poliittisena jäsenyyskategoriana – avautuu uusia (jatko)tutkimusaiheita ja - mahdollisuuksia.

Avainsanat: sosiaalipolitiikka, tuotanto, uusintaminen, kansalaisuus ISBN (print): 978-952-61-0986-2

ISBN (pdf): 978-952-61-0987-9 ISSN-L: 1798-5749

ISSN (print): 1798-5749 ISSN (pdf): 1798-5757

(8)

Acknowledgements

I wrote acknowledgements to my licentiate’s thesis in the autumn 2011. I could not even guess that I will write these acknowledgements – for doctoral dissertation – after approximately a year from then. Research is a continuous process; it is not and it cannot be ready as such. However, a particular research process can be seen as valuable interim step. With completing the current research process, it is time to acknowledge the contributions without which I would not have been able to submit the work in its current form.

Research is teamwork besides it is independent research work, and all the research community is meaningful. My special thanks go to University of East- ern Finland, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, Department of Social Sciences at Kuopio Campus – especially the discipline of Social Policy, where I carried this research out. Respectful thanks to the person who is in particular responsible for the discipline of Social Policy, Prof. Dr.Dr.Dr.h.c, Juhani Laurinkari and DSocSc, University lecturer Veli-Matti Poutanen for their huge expertise, broad-minded approach, and constructive and humane supervising and guidance of the research as well also all the effort because of research. The present research process has been edifying. Thanks also to all the staff and students of social policy as well administrative and office staff. Thanks to the re- viewers of the script for the doctoral dissertation, (emeritus) professor Guy Bäckman and docent Timo Toikko. Their valuable comments and remarks helped me in furthering the work. I am grateful for both expert researchers who supervised and reviewed the research and made valuable and expert remarks;

it has been a privilege. The Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies has nominated docent Toikko to opponent.

Prof. h.c., docent Peter Herrmann commented and corrected the text (written in English) of the script: this possibility was a privilege for which I am grateful. Prof. h.c., docent Herrmann’s apt remarks and comments were helpful to re- think and re-write the text in the fine-tuning process. His remarks stem from his engagement with the text while he was undertaken some basic proof-reading.

About publishing the present research, I thank the series of publishing dissertations of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, “Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies”. Emeritus lecturer Jaakko Asikainen worked on the layout, thanks for the fluent layout. Thanks are also directed to the Kuopio University Foundation (for the support of the present research process, esp. while I had been working

(9)

on the licentiate’s thesis) and Finnish Cultural Foundation, North Savo Regional fund for supporting the research.

I also thank all colleagues who have read and commented on texts related to this research in several seminars and other research-related events. Research discussions have been interesting. Thanks for cooperation and literary discussion to all who I have met (in tandem with this research process), for example, in other writing processes. Finally I want to thank you, my friends, relatives and parents for all help, empathy, support and encouragement. Especially thanks to Kari – who shows me everyday what is truly important in life – for his empathetic presence and encouragement.

Kuopio 12.11.2012 Merja Tarvainen

(10)

1 Introduction

1.1 SOCIAL POLICY AS THE RESEARCH SUBJECT

Social policy in transition – Topical discussions and this research Social policy has a strategic role concerned organizing societal life and practice.

The emergence of social policy with its modern meanings is connected with societal changes that emerged in European societies especially in the second half of the 19^th century. Industrialism was one of the most distinctive changes.

Contemporary changes affected also the state and the emergence of civil society.

Taking together this meant the formation of a novel social and political culture.

The roots and routes of modern social policy have to be seen in the framework of these changes.

One of the matters of today’s social and political discussions is concerned with citizenship. As such it is, actually, reflecting the more general problems of how social, political and socio-political belonging, membership and inclusion are meaningfully defined. Cosmopolitan citizenship is one of the concepts aiming on explaining social belonging and the ways in which it is constructed and maintained in a socially, economically and politically changing world. Howev- er, fundamentally the way of defining inclusion is the same as it had been in the era of nation-state based social, political and socio-political inclusion. (Kymlicka 2002, 312–315.) The terms and concepts of discussions today are very much taken from those contexts and frameworks that stood at the emergence of the modern and industrialized society.

Thus, the following questions are not minor: How are social and socio- political membership and inclusion constructed and which terms are used to define membership and socio-political belonging? This is even more true as in the European welfare states social rights are typically based on state defined citizenship, i.e. citizenship is viewed as the basic node for socio-political inclusion and responsibilities in the 20^th century. However, what will be the roots and routes towards that kind of circumstances? Contributing to the clarification of this problematique is one of the main aims of the present study.

Citizenship is also very topical matter in current social and political discussions. Previously typical locations and institutions for policy making are in transition: the polity is not limited to the context of nation states but in many ways and by diverse networks geared towards sub- and supra-state contexts. At present, politics are defined by referring to the state but as well by local and global references. Thus, citizenship as the basic category of defining socio- political inclusion and membership in the state – as it had been typical in the

(13)

20^th century – becoming in many ways problematic. New ideas are searched for to allow adequately understanding the new developments.

Social security is one of the key issues in current European social and political debates. It concerns also the question of social belonging which is typically viewed from citizenship as point of reference. Welfare systems are ‘inconceiva- ble to think - - without including social security’, as Meehan (1993, 66) crystal- lizes. However, even now under the condition of European states and welfare systems facing major changes, the contextual, historical and conceptual understanding of social and political life of the citizens is required. Social policy, as key matter of organizing social and political life concerns questions of work, social security and care as well as political and socio-political participation and belonging. Thus, the envisaged questions are very much pressing at the current stage of development. Thus discussion – and research – are urgently needed.

Welfare as fundamental right of the European understanding of citizenship is concerned with social rights and political participation. The ability to claim and realize political and civil rights is unequal if distribution and allocation of resources are not fair. (Meehan 1993, 81.) Rauhala (1996, 9) defines that social security and for its provision have three functions. They are: (1) producing social rights (right of social security, for example), (2) defining and regulating social needs and (3) setting normative frames for social and societal living and control – and by doing so, defining and (re)constructing – deviance. Social services have become part of organizing social and societal life in industrialized countries during the 20^th century. They are a way of organizing gender relations in modern, industrialized societies. Structural changes concerned the (social) division of work and shifts in labour market can be connected with demand for welfare services and their emergence. (Rauhala 1996, 9–15, 22, 31–34, 85.)

The organization of social security is an expression of social and political ideas around social responsibilities and reflection of the worldview and views on human being underlaying the understanding of industrial modernism. Care is a matter of social responsibilities and social security. As such it had been fre- quently problematized in respect of different socio-political situations and within different contexts. It is also widely discussed, whose responsibility care is.

(See more about discussions, for ex. Anttonen 1989, 37, 101; Rauhala 1996, 11, 14, 85–86.) Who cares about care? Is care matter of public discussion and rights or is it defined as being limited to domestic, private spheres, usually provided by women as typically unpaid work?

In which way ever, social policy is in one way or another part of everyone’s life. Thus, discussion about themes of social policy, and the aims and motiva- tions of different actors is needed. Actually, these reflections are part of a wider worldview. According to Heiskala (2002, 353–354), social policy concerns both the differences of worldviews and the conflicts of interests and corporeal goods.

Social policy can be described, for example, as the sector of politics or a way of realizing policies. It can be approached as mechanism of implementating socie- 12

(14)

tal redistribution. It can be viewed as being concerned with rights and legal provisions or as a matter of different regimes or it can be explored by considering it as mechanism that contextualizes social questions. (Deacon 2007, on the welfare regimes, Bäckman & Stenman 2004, 11–21, passim). The viewpoint that looks at social policy as matter of ‘social questions’ is referring to the fact that different themes, issues and matters are brought into social and political discussion reflecting different viewpoints, ideological and political perspectives. The- se ‘social questions’ are reflected by the use of different expressions (parlance and agency). Social questions are reflecting political and socio-political situations in the specifically given spatial and temporal context. (On understanding social policy and the ways of structuring practices of social policy in temporal context see, Eräsaari 1993, 18–19.) However, all these definitions are expressing reflections on the ways of organizing social and societal life.

Social and political thoughts and ideas are part of (re)construction of the worldview. Worldview can be defined as understanding about reality. It is dis- tinctively culturally connected and the language of a worldview can also be the language of ‘myth, metaphor and emotion’, as Manninen (1989, 104) contends.

A worldview includes, for example, and particularly the overall understanding of society and the visions for the structures of society as well as the ideas of social relations. (Manninen 1977, 16–17, 47; Envall 1989, 124–125.) The ideas of society and human beings are constitutive parts of a worldview. Social and political thinking is connecting these questions and outlooks with various meanings. Social spaces and areas, i.e. the (more or less concrete) places of social encounters are constructed and conceptualized within a given context.

A worldview can be also described as a metaphor of world (Envall 1989, 128). However, a metaphor of world is not necessarily a concentration of com- plete world (Envall 1989, 135; Pepper 1972; Hahn 2001). Metaphor¹ can be understood as a specific way of conceptualization. In that case, it is not just a rhetorical² device (Danesi 1994). The meanings, dimensions and tasks of worldviews are both psychological and individual and social and ideological in their character. Socially shared worldviews are part of reconstructing social cohesion. It is also a way of defining relations between human beings. (Envall 1989, 119–120; Manninen 1977, 44–47. Also Duveen 2000; Puhakka 1977;

Moscovici 2000.) Thus, it is meaningfully concerned with the process of constructing both social and individual identity.

The meanings, assignments and dimensions of worldviews are both individual and social as well as they are psychological, social and ideological. The worldview is a means of constructing social cohesion and determines the ways of defining community in relation to other communities. (Envall 1989, 119–120;

1The basic troops are metonym, metaphor, synecdoche and irony (Palonen 1997, 14–16; Hart 1998, 159).

2The basics of rhetorical figure are crystallized to ethos (who), pathos (aiming to impact somebody with talk) and logos (reasoning) (Palonen 1997, 25). See also Leth 2010.

13

(15)

Manninen 1977, 44–47. See also Duveen 2000; Puhakka 1977; Moscovici 2000.) Hence, the worldview is the constitutive element of identity. The psychological dimension of worldviews can be interpreted both as matter of psychology of individuals and a matter of socio-psychology. The meanings of a worldview – which are part of (re)constructing or deconstructing social cohesion – will be investigated by research about understanding of social policy and the meanings of different ideas and ideologies.

There are many ways to approach political relations and agency. One approach aims on understanding political relations as specific form of social relations (Jansson 1985, 9). Thus, the approach is quite sociological or can be seen as belonging to political sociology. Nevertheless, in that case, political relations, institutions, ideas and practices are understood getting their forms in spatial and temporal contexts. They are also viewed to be constructing social relations between individual and collective and as constitutive elements concerned the ways of defining those relations. In this light, politics is approached with a wide understanding, i.e. the basis of approaching politics is not limited to dealing with some particular, predetermined terms and conditions (Palonen 1997;

Palonen 2003a&b; Palonen 2008; Jansson 1985, 14–15, passim. See also Urponen 1979).

1.2 CONTEXT AND THE PREMISES OF THE RESEARCH

Context is understood as set of relevant, essential connections, i.e. when saying that phenomena are explored contextually means that they are observed by taking their relevant connections into account. Historical context refers to the background – relevant connections, historical layers – where phenomena are linked and included and which are thus impacting also in societal life today.

The effects are not just historical curiosities but they are part of nowadays’ phenomena of social and political life. As such they influence example strongly social policy. Therefore, understanding contextually also means operating in time, thus understanding the varying models of explanation changing in time and place producing different and various interpretations on even the very same phenomenon.

Of course, historical – or any other – context is not waiting out there, but it is question about analytic interpretation based on research and relevant valid choices made from there (Kent 2012, 1–5 discusses more about these matters).

That is to say, these ideas have a history, they change over time and vary by geo- graphic or cultural context. They aren’t natural. We make them up – we construct them, as we say today, and as a society we usually do so in order to further a particular political, cultural, economic, or social agenda.(Kent 2012, 3.)

14

(16)

The context of this research is the era during which ‘the social area’ had been formed in the said way: socially constructed. Hellsten (2009, 13) defines that

‘the social area’ was formed between juridic subject and economic subject: these new fields of social became the main subjects of (emerging) social sciences. Dis- cussions about ‘the social area’ were held at international levels. (Hellsten 2009, 13–15.) However, the turn of the 20^th century has been described as ‘progressive era’ (Hellsten 2009, 13; Rodgers 2001, 52–75, passim). At that time, the practices and policies for contemporary social and societal changes and their conse- quences (caused mostly by industrialization) were not established or uniform, but there were many lines of action and many policies (Hellsten 2009, 14).

The formation of social policy with its modern meanings is both contextually and conceptually connected with societal changes in the turn of the 20^th century European societies. One of the most essential societal changes had been industrialization which – with its side-effects – is typically described as the most influential societal change in those times, however affecting societal life (especially in Europe) also nowadays.

Contemporary social and societal changes were also questions of the mod- ernization of the state and the emergence of civil society. They were forming a new social and political culture and novel ways of relating and belonging. So- cial policy was one of the expressions of social, political and societal changes at the turn of the 20^th century. The core element of the theory of social policy is concerned with relations between individual and collective³. The formation of social policy within its modern meaning is typically linked with industrialization, and social policy is rooted especially in the questions around work and its changing societal character over time.

On the concepts of social and political jargon

Social and political jargon is evermore in transition. However, our living is affected by various changes in social and political cultures – and their reliability is essential. However, the meanings and uses of concepts are contextually defined and shifting over time. However, they are not static but on the move.

The conceptualization of social and political phenomena is continual process (Béland 2011). Conceptualization⁴ can be understood as making phenome-

3For ex. Tilly & Goodin 2006, 11, passim; Tilly 2006, 421; Siedentop 1983, 61–62.

4Kuçuradi (1998), for ex., writes on justice. Theoretical and conceptual problematic concerned justice is approached with the viewpoints introduced by Ancient philosophers: Plato’s view on ideas is motivating to ask – along with Aristotle’s way of thinking – the contexts of thinking and ideas, i.e.

the essential practical connections of concepts (Kuçuradi 1998). Conceptualization of ideas is expressed with contextual relations and the relations of referencing. Thus, they are (re)constructing conceptual networks. Understanding concerned conceptualization can be understood as opening, discussing and reflecting different, various viewpoints and outlooks.

Then the horizons of meanings will be reflected. The matters of conceptualization and matters

15

(17)

na understandable: understanding about phenomena is constructed in a particular way and by using particular concepts in a specific way. Thus, conceptualization is a practical thing although it is a highly abstract, cognitive matter.

The way of understanding and defining concepts is influenced by the multiple relations of meanings and the different sets of ideas and ideologies that are producing various understandings concerned even with the very same phenomena of social and political life. They are interpreting in a particular way and their interpretations have a particular definitional basis with respective specific meanings. (On research about concepts and worldviews, for ex. Hyrkkänen 2002, 72–135, passim; Kallinen 2003.)

Key concepts are specific matters concerned constructing, structuring and organizing understanding about social and political ideas and practices. Along with key concepts, the ideas of agency are also meaningful when forming social and political thoughts. A typical way is to divide spheres as public and private.

Dividing the dimensions of agency as ‘public’ and ‘private’ is a way of defining and approaching actors, agency and the areas or the sectors of agency. Division between public and private are reflected a certain, ideal type definitions or dis- tillations. However, they are formed within a specific context. Public and private are confusing issues. Previously typical, dominant categorization of spheres had been organized around family as the matter of private sphere and other social life as the matters of public. Newer categorizations of spheres are concerned with relations and the limits of the state and other actors. Thus, state is understood synonymously with public and markets, associations (civil agency) and family are defined as different parts of private sphere. (Julkunen 2006, 106–107; Häggman 1994; Markkola 1994; Kymlicka 2002, 2; Goodin & Martin &

Moran 2008; Tilly 2006, 421, passim; Tilly & Goodin 2006.) (See also Kerkelä 1996, 61–71.) However, this definition is mainly based on a liberal paradigm (which could in some situations include even libertarian connotations).

The key concepts of social and political thinking (i.e. the key concepts of conceptualization and understanding that is based in these concepts) are typi-

concerned what can be known about them are deeply related to epistemological problematic (on knowing and its limits). It is also contained methodological problematic concerned questions how information will be acquired. According to Agamben (1995, 68–69), only theory – not the hierarchy of types – will be able to explore problematic concerned the linguistic being of thinking.

This may be interpreted that linguistic problematic will be possible to understood – or at least knowing something on them – by research concerned outlooks and structures of concepts.

However, hierarchical categorization will not be able to reach problematics and the multidimensional, multilevel matters of conceptual networks. Theory, for its part, will be interpreted to be referring to metainformation, i.e. information concerned the basics and premises of various theories in their relevant connections (on contexts and theoretical orientation, see also for ex. Sohrabi 2005; on facts and theories, for ex. Manninen 1989, 18; on ideas, also for ex. Duveen 2000). However, this may be referring to a matter that conceptualization is concerned the (re)construction process of meanings and for opening them, metainformation about conceptualization is needed (on understanding the way of understanding, see for ex. Hyrkkänen 2002.

16

(18)

cally defined to be politics, power, state, democracy, freedom and legitimacy.

(Pekonen 1991, 54; Palonen 2003a&b; Pulkkinen 2003; Anttonen 1997, 20, passim.)

However, concepts are seldom, if ever, approached as separate units if the aim is to explore conceptual problems. Explores are typically concerned some concept and its relations with other concepts: according to von Wright (2001, 29), researcher is operating in the field of concepts not with just a concept (when doing concept research). The field of concept can be formed with various conceptual networks. Exploring will be exposing distinctions, connections and disconnections between concepts (von Wright 2001, 29–30; on concepts in Wittegenstein’s way of interpretation, von Wright 2001, 44). This will be opening views on the ways of understanding the concepts by which understanding about society, for example, is constructed.

Above-mentioned key concepts can be also interpreted with the network metaphor. Thus, key concepts can be interpreted to as being the nodes of conceptual network and their relations are (re)constructing ways concepts are understood and interpreted. With the network metaphor, it will be possible to develop an understanding of conceptual relations in the field of social and political research. (On different traditions of interpretation in semantics (for ex.

conceptualism – concept realism (Plato), Niiniluoto 1997, 25.)

Typical for the concepts of social and political jargon is that they lack ge- neric definitions. However, definitions are not random but related to the given context. (Berndtson 1992, 84–91.) Typical examples of social and political jargon are also multidimensionality, historical layers and the matter that their meanings are constructed in connection with other, (immediate) concepts.

Social policy is one of the topics in current social, political and socio- political discussions that has multiple meanings. Topical discussions on social policy are connected especially with the divisions of spheres (between public and private) and responsibilities defined along these spheres. However, social responsibilities and their organization are also discussed with a view on agency and the distribution of responsibilities between different actors. (On topical matters for ex. Hämäläinen 2011; Internet site of ESPANET conference (2008)⁵.) As the concept of social and political jargon, social policy and related discussions are part of other discussions, questions and dominant ideologies (i.e. the dominant ways of viewing the social world and the ways of organizing it).

However, the change on phrasing questions may be referring to the changes on (dominant) social and political ideas and the way of thinking.

According to Hyvärinen (2008, 61), the concepts of social and political jargon are theoretical and political condensations which are distilled political cul-

5According to Eräsaari: ‘Existing research in these problem [i.e. history of social policy ideas]

constellations is a very small field and a small body of literature.’

http://www.etk.fi/Page.aspx?Section=61331&Item=62607

17

(19)

ture related with time⁶ [and place⁷]. Understanding social and political concepts will be a key to understanding contextual social and political ideas and practices. (Hyvärinen 2008, 61; Tilly & Goodin 2006. On politics and place, for ex.

Therborn 2006; Wong 2006; for ex. Thrift 2006; Hubbard & Kitchin & Valentine 2004, 1–7; McGrew 1992, 62; Jessop 2000; Malpas 1999, 20–24 are problematizing

’place’ and ’space’.)

Even the very same phenomena are conceptualized and understood in different ways in politics and political thinking, rhetoric and practicing. Thus, the concepts of political jargon will not be defined in a static way as something that can be taken for granted, but they will be questioned with respect to their conceptualization and as “historical matters”⁸ of concepts (Palonen 2008, 195). (Al- so Tilly 2006.) However, conceptualization may also be concerned with values and value matters.

Concept

Concept is one of the core elements of this research. What, then, is ‘concept’ and how can it be approached?

Sajama (2001, 3–4) introduces three ways of defining ‘concept’. First, ‘concept’ can be used synonym for ‘word’. This may be problematic because it lo- cates ‘concept’ with, and typically only with, particular language or jargon. The second way of using ‘concept’ is to view it as meaning. Meanings are brought into discussion with questions about abstract relations and epistemological and methodological questions about gaining and gathering information. A third way of using ‘concept’ is to view it as a device of separating something from something else. In that case, the most important questions are about what concepts are doing. (Sajama 2001, 3–4.)

As Sajama (2011, 3) states, this comes fairly close to Wittgenstein’s ideas that the meanings of a word are (expressed) within its usage in parlance. All three ways are opening a view on ‘concept’ and conceptual usage, but, however,

6‘Researcher will make a mistake if thinking that words written in, say, one hundred years ago are used in the way they are used now’ (Hyvärinen 2008, 61). (Transl. MT.) In Finnish: ’- - tutkija erehtyy helposti jos ajattelee, että [esim.] vajaan sadan vuoden ikäisissä teksteissä sanoja on käytetty nykyiseen tapaan’ (Hyvärinen 2008, 61).

As Manninen states, if present is taken as an idol and past happens are interpreted as instrumentally led to this situation, the possibility of historical dialogue will be muted. Thus, development is set static and one-dimensional and the consciousness of history as the realm of possibilities will be fading out. Transl. MT. In Finnish: ‘Nykyisyyden nostaminen esikuvaksi ja aikaisemman alentaminen siihen johtaneeksi välineeksi vaientaa historiallisen dialogin mahdollisuuden, lukitsee kehityksen yksiviivaiseksi ja hävittää tietoisuuden historiasta vaihtoehtojen valtakuntana.’ – Juha Manninen

7On place as the concept of structuring politics, for ex. Therborn 2006, 510, passim. On problematic of defining place, for ex. Wong 2006, 534–545; Magubane 2005; for ex. problematic concerned central – periphery, see also Varpio 2005; Rokkan 1981;1973;1987; Massey 2003; Hall 2003; Hall 1992, 300–309; Hubbard & Kitchin & Valentine 2004, 1–7, passim; Jessop 2000; Malpas 1999, 20–24.

8On the concept of politics as historical matter, Palonen 2008, 197.

18

(20)

if there are questions and definitions with a complex problematic, the first way (concept as word) will be too simplistic. The second one will discuss meanings and the third will be opening perspectives on the pragmatic conceptual usage of particular concepts. (Sajama 2011, 3–4.)

According to Laurence & Margolis (1999, 3), concepts are ‘the most fundamental constructs in theories of the mind’. However – or just because of that – they are complex, controversial and the matters of current, ongoing topical discussion. The ways in which the world and human relations are viewed and understood are linked and (re)constructed in connection with conceptualizations, i.e. by making some phenomena understandable. Concepts are linked with ‘mental theories’, abstractions and representations and they are also – in tandem – reconstructing these ways of viewing. (Laurence and Margolis (1999) introduce some key theories concerned concepts: the classical theory, philo- sophical scepticism about the classical theory, the probabilistic turn, neoclassical theories, the theory-theory and conceptual atomism are introduced. They are analyzed more systematically in the specific sections and chapters (by various authors) in the same book (ed. by Margolis & Laurence 1999).)

How to approach theoretical questions of social policy? How to approach the concept of social policy, especially as social policy is a complex, controversial concept that has to be seen as part of the wider conceptual collection in social and political jargon? There are many ways to approach, explore and analyze social policy as concept. One of them is exploring conceptual backgrounds (which can be viewed a kind of meta-information) of social policy. However, different schools of thought and social and political ideologies can use concepts with different emphases.

The aim is to explore the meta-information that concerns social policy. By aiming on doing so, the theory-theory of concepts may function as research device for understanding the discourses of social policy in the context of modern industrialism. That is because the theory-theory of concepts will give some theoretical and methodological devices for exploring the foundation of modern thinking and it’s meaning for social policy and social life.

The theory-theory of concepts, introduced by Laurence & Margolis (1999, 43–47) is concerned for example with the roles and meanings of concepts in theories and theoretical assumptions. Theory-theory is understanding concepts as cognitive strategies constituted for gathering information and constructing understanding. Concepts are, in the understanding of theory-theory, the matters of representation which are structuring mental models and (re)constructing knowledge. Concepts are viewed related to other (immediate) concepts. Thus they are (re)constructing complex conceptual networks which have an impact on the way mental models and cognitive schemes are constructed. (Laurence &

Margolis 1999, 43–47; Murphy & Medin 1999; Carey 1999, 459–450.)

Laurence and Margolis (1999) discuss the way of approaching concepts, the development of relevant schemes and their understanding concepts – and

19

(21)

also the ways of deepening understanding by the use of concepts. They con- clude that ‘nothing is lost by saying that concepts are mental representations’.

(Laurence & Margolis 1999, 77, passim; Armstrong & Gleitman & Gleitman 1999, 225–227.)

However, the theory-theory is also problematic and controversial. The criticique of theory-theory is especially reminding questions of ignorance, the errors of reasoning (or deduction), conceptual changes and ‘mysteries of sciences’, which refers to the matter that novel scientific theories will be difficult to understand with ‘old’ concepts, i.e. in a previously typical way of conceptualization. (Laurence & Margolis 1999, 47–51.)

However, the problem of ignorance and error is not just the problem of the theory-theory but concerns all the questions of concept and conceptualization (on criticism towards the classical theory, Laurence & Margolis 1999, 27). Of course, different theories may have different problematic points but the questions about the limits of knowledge and cognitive gaps in connection with conceptualization and knowledge formed with this approach are topical matters for all discussions about concepts. Thus, they are matters of epistemological reflection and consideration. Social and political jargon is reflecting them (in practice) and social policy is – for its part – is reflecting parts of social and political thinking.

There are many complex, controversial matters concerned with (the understanding of) concepts. As lexical matters, concepts are typically viewed as

‘structured complexes’ (Laurence & Margolis 1999, 5). There are two ways of viewing how concepts are structured: the containment model and the inferential model. Both of these models concern conceptual relations, i.e. relations between one concept and other concepts. According to the containment model, a concept is a unit whose formation contains properties from other concepts (in this case, the existence of some particular concept is viewed to be demanding existence of some particular other concept). The inferential model, for its part, is also looking at concepts and their relations: for example, as Laurence & Margo- lis (1999, 5) put it, X, Y, and Z can be part of the conceptual structure of C, but C still can occur without the others. (Laurence & Margolis 1999, 5; Murphy &

Medin 1999.)

Murphy and Medin (1999) introduce two approaches concerned the meaning of concepts in the theory-theory. The views are: similarity-based and theory- based approach. The approaches are different in some key aspects of conceptual theory. (Murphy & Medin 1999, 435.) (About definitional view, see also Arm- strong & Gleitman & Gleitman 1999, 227–228. On atomism as the tendency which problematizes definitions, Fodor & Garret & Walker & Parkes 1999.)

The similarity-based approach is concerned with achieving information about a concept and its conceptual relations and usage from the basis of similarity: attributes play a central role in the theory which compares and interprets concepts and their relations by using attribute and features.

20

(22)

The theory-based approach is concerned with concepts with meta- information and conceptual relations observed between concepts. Thus, concepts are here viewed in order to understand their meaning in relation to other concepts; this approach emphasizes the role of relations in the understanding of concepts – and the way of (re)constructing information and knowledge.

The view of conceptual

theory Similarity-based ap-

proach Theory-based approach

Concept representation Structure (similar), attrib-

ute (correlated) Correlated attributes with meta-information about the kind of correlations and their recognition

Category definition Summation of attributes Explanatory principle (which is defined to be common for the members of some category)

Units of analysis Attributes Attributes, the relations of attributes and concepts (explic- it represented ones)

Categorization basis Matching attributes Matching attributes and infer- ring (with) metainformation

Weighting of attributes Validity concerned cue

(sign), salience (lynchpin) Meta-information; underlying principles determines partly

Interconceptual structure Shared attributes; hierar-

chies Networks by causal and ex-

planatory links;

particular shared properties which relevance have to be analyzed

Conceptual development Feature accretion Explanations and organizing of concepts change ‘as a result of world knowledge’

Source: Murphy & Medin 1999, 435. [retold]

Thus, it is conceptualizing concepts in a way which can be described (with the metaphor of) ‘network’. It emphasizes also meta-data and meta-information in the process of understanding the way in which concepts are contextually understood. Meta-information may mean information about information, i.e. ways and schemes particular conceptualizations are made, retold and reconstructed.

(On theories’ role concerned conceptual coherence, Murphy & Medin 1999, 425–

458. On the usage of information and knowledge in the processes of conceptual-

21

(23)

ization discusses for ex. Carey 1999; on categorization as conceptual phenomenon, Murphy & Medin 1999, 432–433.)

Jackendoff (1999, 305) problematizes ‘concept’ in an epistemological way:

What can be known about ‘concepts’, especially when ‘concepts’ are usually approached in a very concrete, practical way. Jackendoff discusses concepts also as the matters of individually constructed mental models and socially shared and communicated ones. Jackendoff (1999, 306) refers to Chomsky⁹ when intro- ducing ‘E- and I-concepts’ (Chomsky introduced ‘E- and I-language’), where E stands for externalized and I for internalized. Jackendoff introduces the epistemological principles of these two categories of producing knowledge.

(Jackendoff 1999, 305–309.) Thus, for acquiring information about a concept and its contextual usage, contextual exploration will give some information about how (the) concept is understood, applied and reflected.

Summarizing previous research

Social policy has been quite widely discussed as the sector of policies that make out the welfare state in the context of analyzing structures and practices of the (modern) state. But it is open in which way this emerged?

However, social policy has also been analyzed from the viewpoint of societal norms, rights and regulations during the 20^th century. Furthermore, it has been discussed also from the viewpoint of social security and – during the 20^th century – especially from the viewpoint of the institutions of social security systems.

In the field of social history, different social questions (with their contextual definitions) have traditionally been a major research subject. However, key texts from the viewpoint of this research are, on the other hand, research made on social and societal changes in the turn of the 20^th century. Research on politics and theory of politics, on the other hand, are also essential (see for ex. Palonen 1997; Palonen 2003a&b; Palonen 2008; Pekonen 1991).

Urponen (1979) and Lehtonen (1977), for example, have researched the ways of defining social policy especially in the context of Finland. Urponen has researched the problematic of social policy and social policy as applying social science in his doctoral dissertation. The phases of social security systems in the context of Finland have been researched for example by Hellsten (1981 & 1993) and Jaakkola et al. (1994). Deacon (2007) is writing about social policy from the viewpoint on social matters in global perspective.

In the field of social policy research, the contextual definitions of social policy have been observed specifically during the recent decades. They have opened discussions about social policy in relation to other topical political matters. (For ex. Béland 2011.) Béland’s article (on February 2011), for example, discusses the concept of social policy in relation with definitions on social security.

9Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.

22

(24)

Béland is focusing especially on France and United States. He refers to recent observations by various researchers on the vagueness of social policy and concepts related to social policy. (See Béland 2011; see also Hellsten 1993, 13–20;

Skocpol & Ritter 1991.) However, vague and ambiguous are different matters:

Vagueness is concerned with concepts, ambiguity is concerned with words.

According to von Wright (2001, 41), a concept may be described ‘vague’ if it is not pellucid what the sphere of the concept is concerned with. (von Wright 2001, 41–42.)

Meehan (1993) is discussing citizenship with its historical roots and topical questions concerned Europe and the European community: she reflects questions of the nation state as context for citizenship, the so called globalization of citizenship and also European citizenship, which she placed in between the (nation) state contextualized socio-political membership and purely global citizenship. (Meehan 1993, 1, passim.)

Gender research emerged ‘out of women’s history’, i.e. the roots of gender history, gender studies and related research can be found in feminist¹⁰ traditions (Kent 2012, 49; Saarinen 1986, 235–236, passim). These epistemological viewpoints are considered in this research (however, this research is not set just on the basis of feminist research). In the context of Finnish social policy research, Anttonen (1989; 1997) has discussed and opened the field with feminist research orientation. Also for example Rantalaiho (ed. 1986, articles 1986a–b), Julkunen (1986; 1995a–b) and Alanen (1986) have brought forward questions of conceptualizing the key themes, discourses and concepts of social sciences – also social policy – in feminist perspective.

Typical for feminist research or gender research is problematizing the key concepts of a particular discipline or field of study (like history, politics, nursing etc.) from epistemological and ontological perspective of gender. In that sense, feminist research will give some theoretical and methodological inspiration for research discussions on the questions and matters of social policy and the ways of seeing them. It will give some theoretical and methodological inspiration especially, if we take into account gender as one of the key systems of organizing social lives (Rantalaiho 1986a, 14).

As Anttonen (1989, 26) states, women researchers have explored social policy and welfare state with the concept of reproduction. Actually, the 1980s was the time when these became – at first time? – discussed, problematized and opened by feminist research. Feminist research engages with various disciplines of science by problematizing paradigmatic viewpoints. In this research, feminist research will be applied when searching and reading discourses of social policy.

However, reproduction – as feminist research introduced and applied it – will give information not only for feminist – or female – positions (but, of course, it

10On the waves of feminism and feminist research’s contribution on social and political research, Kent 2012, 28–46.

23

(25)

does so) but also – and especially – about the wider cultural environment and social spheres: it will give information about specific contexts.

The emergence of social policy has been interpreted as the emergence of questions about work. However, despite the fact that this is a key element of social sciences, also social policy, the problematization of work – from the viewpoint of gender as theoretical and methodological matter – needs to be explored more in depth.

Research with contextual, comparative and historical¹¹ orientation on social policy is required (for ex. Béland 2011, 2, 13, passim; on comparing and producing processes of information, see also for ex. Bäckman & Stenman 2004, 1, 28, 60, passim; Anttonen 1997, 197–198). One of the remarkable factors that high- light the need for historical, conceptual, contextual and comparative study on social policy and related concepts, can be seen in the process¹² of European in- tegration (Béland 2011).

Thus, social policy is very topical matter in global, local and state contextual relations. Historical orientation, conceptual discussion and opening of themes concerned social policy will not only look at the historical layers of social policy and their effects on the way of organizing social policy today but also the socially shared worldview on social relations and belonging.

Many of the political vocabularies in the contemporary European context are rooted to classic Greek and Latin languages¹³. New political jargons, theories, processes and occasions have modified and complemented social and political vocabulary; they are impacting on changes in it. Different, various political outlooks and theories as well as linguistic conventions, resources and dimensions are encountering in the arenas of European political and socio- political jargons. Political jargons are reflected lexical meanings and meanings of (political) events and processes with different theoretical orientations.

(Palonen 2003a, 570.)

Research concerned the concepts of social and political thinking will be a key to opening and understanding social and political discussions, concepts and meanings. Social policy is linked with organizing societal lives and social responsibilities between individual and collective. Thus, social policy is – in one way or another – part of everyone’s life.

11See Tilly 2006, 421, passim; Riihinen 1992, 257. According to Hyrkkänen (2002, 9), ‘studying thoughts and ideas is both needed and difficult’. In Finnish: ’Käsitysten tutkiminen on sekä tarpeellista että vaikeaa’ (Hyrkkänen 2002, 9).

12On European Union and social policy, for ex. Laitinen-Kuikka 2003.

13Koselleck (1998; see Palonen 2003a, 571) interprets that the differences of European political sets of concepts are caused by distance to the social and political vocabulary of European circle of culture which is based on classical Latin and Creek (lingua franca) (Palonen 2003a, 571).

24

(26)

2 The Assignment of the Re- search

2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION

Social policy is concerned with the ways of organizing social and societal life, but this does not define the conceptual foundation of social policy. What is – in discursive sense – social policy about? In the research, formation processes, roots and discourses concerned social policy within its modern meanings are explored and discussed. The aim of the present research is to analyze and discuss themes, questions and discourses of social policy (within its modern meanings) at the turn of the 20^th century. This will be done by exploring the meaning of social policy through the analysis of context.

The research will focus on social policy within its modern meanings in the turn of the 20^th century. Formation and definitions as well as questions of modern social policy are explored contextually, focusing especially on the context of Finland, but also analyzing relevant contextual connections – as they emerge especially from European developments.

Formulating the question

Can some main themes, questions and discourses concerned social policy (in the turn of the 20^th century) be found? In other words, what can be suggested to be main themes, questions and discourses of modern social policy?

The phrasing of question can be put forward as follows: First, what kind of themes can be found concerned with analyzing the emergence of social policy with its modern meanings? Second, what are key questions of social policy at the turn of the 20^th century? As the roots of modern social policy are typically connected with the questions that defined the beginning, their investigation is essential for understanding also today’s social policy. The third part is focused as follows: How can these themes and especially questions on the discourses of the formation of social policy be opened for an understanding of the underlying problematiques and concept of social policy.

25

(27)

2.2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Phenomenology

Phenomenology explicates reality as matter of phenomena. Social policy can be approached as phenomenon. However, different theoretical approaches can view social policy in different ways. Thus, if explore discourses and theoretical questions of social policy, applying phenomenological approach will be relevant concerned with the attributes and existence of social policy. If viewing reality as matter of phenomena, what will be the existence and attributes of social policy about? These will be also explored with reflecting conceptual matters of phenomena, which are part of the way reality as matter of phenomena is constructed.

However, phenomenology is difficult to define as unified set of thinking or school of thought (Himanka & Hämäläinen & Sivenius 1995, 9). The orientation of this research is theoretical. In the present research, the aim is to explore discourses considering social policy within its modern meanings. Phenomenology means continued referece to the basis and premises of (the way of) thinking (continued reflective reduction) (Miettinen & Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 9–10).

Phenomenological way of approaching reality is concerned with phenomena. In this light, social policy and its existence as phenomenon will be illustrated with phenomenological reflection about social policy and conceptual research.

Edmund Husserl set the basis of phenomenology, and his students, especially Martin Heidegger developed that way further (the most well-known book by Heidegger is Sein und Zeit (Being and Time). Husserl’s idea of phenomenological reduction is the key of the concept. (Miettinen & Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 15–18; Heinämaa 1996, 16; Himanka & Hämäläinen & Sivenius 1995.) The basis of phenomenological reduction can be seen as thinking about thinking and the underlying premises. Husserl emphasized also that theories have to be reduced into human lives but not as oppressed to some particular, even ideological aims but as critical analyses concerned those (ideological) aims (Miettinen 2010, 155).

However, the core aspect of phenomenology is the way of asking, i.e. the phrasing of questions (Miettinen & Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 9). Research is typically concerned with the phrasing of questions and the way of questioning.

Thus, here, phenomenology will be applied in as a methodology. As the epistemological orientation, the basis of phenomenology is concerned with both, phrasing of questions and re-thinking about the premises of thinking (Miettinen

& Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 9–10). One of the key issues for phenomenology is the question of the structures of experience and understanding (Miettinen &

Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 9–13). (Husserl emphasized phenomenology as the basis of sciences describing it as strict science, aiming on overcoming ostensible contradictions by focusing on things and phenomena as such. (Miettinen &

Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 13, passim; Husserl 1995.) In that sense, studying the 26

(28)

key themes of some issues – here social policy – will be reasonable to do by employing a phenomenological research orientation.

Especially because phenomenology is not the way of observing phenomena by “establishing static objects” but by consciously exploring the relevant issues in an open “fluid” way, the research may open the view on perspectives different to what would be expected from looking at static object. Thus, phenomenological reduction concerns the processes of constructing. (Himanka &

Hämäläinen & Sivenius 1995, 18; Miettinen & Pulkkinen & Taipale 2010, 9–10.) This is enabling open-minded analyses in the multidimensional field of social policy.

However, Heiskala’s (1997, 28–29, passim) dialogue on phenomenology and the way of applying action theory, phenomenological sociology and (neo)structuralism are considered also in this research. First, the orientation of present research is phenomenological. Second, methodological and epistemological premises are concerned with theories of agency and structures. Here, reflections by Heiskala (1997) concerned with phenomenological orientation and approaching of agency and structures are considered.

Key concepts

The present research aims on exploring the discourses of social policy with its modern meanings. In that case, an essential question is what is meant with ‘discourse’.

Discourse is understood as the matter of knowledge and social relations.

Foucault uses ‘discourse’ to describe the specific language in a given field of agency; he is also focusing on questions of power. (Kent 2012, 129–130.) Political science is traditionally focused on a research subject centrally concerned with three issues, namely ‘politics’, ‘power’ and ‘state’. Politics is the key subject, power viewed to be giving a specific aspect to research and state is viewed as the contextual frameworks for agency. (Berndtson 1992, 32, passim.)

Discourse is about power because it is a matter of constructing social reality with ideas and practices. However, could discourse also be a matter of responsibilities? Discourses, as Kent (2012, 70) states, make definitions, construct and reconstruct social orders ‘in the world’, and their way is inherently political which means they are concerned with power relations. If viewing discourse as the matter of governing social relationships, controlling and setting norms, it will be also the matter of official and unofficial institutions¹⁴.

14Crystallizing: Institutions are referred to the (jointly shared) social rules and norms which are guided and frame-worked social lives concerned two or more human beings and which are impacted on social ideas and practices, i.e. in the ways of viewing, structuring and organizing social lives. The institutional view of research is approached its research subject especially via institutions and the changes of institutions. Institutions can be divided up (for ex.) as official and unofficial institutions. Official institutions mean for ex. laws and unofficial institutions can be for ex. various contextually-bounded social conventions, rules and principles – norms. (See for ex.

27

Production, reproduction and citizenship : key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20th century

d is se rt at io n s

Merja Tarvainen Production, Reproduction and

Citizenship

Merja Tarvainen

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

Key Discourses of Social Policy in the Turn

of the 20th Century

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

– Key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20 century

Production, Reproduction and Citizenship

– Key discourses of social policy in the turn of the 20 century

Acknowledgements

Contents

1 Introduction

2 The Assignment of the Re- search

2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION